By Our Reporter
SHILLONG, May 25: The High Court of Meghalaya has quashed the cancellation of a child’s admission to St. Edmund’s School and directed the school authorities to allow the student to attend regular classes within one week.
A single-judge bench of Justice W Diengdoh held that the writ petition filed by the child’s mother was maintainable and ruled that the school’s action in cancelling the admission was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice.
“The prayer made in this petition is hereby allowed. The cancellation of the admission of the petitioner’s son in Class KG for Session 2026 is hereby set aside and quashed. The respondent school is directed to immediately allow the child to attend regular classes within one week from the date of this order,” the court said in its May 22 judgment.
The petitioner had challenged the decision of the school to forfeit her five-year-old son’s admission after the family failed to attend an induction programme on time in December 2025.
According to court records, the child had successfully completed all admission formalities, fulfilled all prescribed criteria and was allotted Registration No. 76 after being selected for admission to Class KG for the 2026 academic session.
The petitioner stated that while undergoing treatment for allergic conjunctivitis from December 8 to 12, 2025, she inadvertently missed SMS notifications sent by the school regarding a mandatory induction programme scheduled for December 13.
On receiving a phone call from school authorities on the day of the programme, the child’s father rushed to the campus with the child and attended the latter half of the session. The petitioner also sent an email the following day explaining the circumstances and tendering an unconditional apology.
However, on February 10, 2026, the school informed the family via email that the admission stood forfeited in accordance with its admission guidelines.
Challenging the decision, the petitioner argued that no guideline expressly stated that absence from the induction programme would lead to automatic cancellation of admission.
The school authorities had opposed the petition, contending that as a private unaided minority institution, it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Rejecting this argument, the court held that although the school is a private institution, it performs a public function by imparting education and is, therefore, subject to judicial review in matters involving public law elements.
The court observed that imparting education is a public function and that the school’s decision on admission directly relates to that function.
It further noted that the school had failed to officially communicate its decision in December 2025 and did not provide the parents any opportunity to explain their absence before cancelling the admission.
The court held that the action of the school was arbitrary and deprived the child of natural justice.
Justice Diengdoh observed that if the decision had been conveyed earlier, the parents could have explored alternative schools, whereas the delayed communication placed the child at risk of losing an academic year.
The court also noted that there was nothing on record to show that the admission process had clearly stipulated that failure to attend the induction programme would automatically result in forfeiture of admission.
“…the action or inaction of the school authorities can only be termed as an action of arbitrariness and certainly a deprivation of natural justice to the parents and the child in question, falling within the reach of violation of the fundamental rights of the parents and the child as enshrined in Article 14 and 21A of the Constitution,” the court said.
